Ruth King offers a withering summary of Petraeus’ military career. Her assessment seems spot on to me.

Petraeus is typical of our top military leadership. The “cursus honorum” for officers aspiring to high rank has little to do with the martial virtues. The path to power in our armed forces has two critical components: first, make sure you always profess your faith in the ideology of the ruling class; second, spend as much time near the source of power in Washington and obtaining advanced degrees from prestigious civilian institutions as possible. The two are, of course, related. The degrees from prestigious universities certify one’s knowledge of and adherence to the consensus animating our elites.

The strategy that Petraeus helped to devise for Iraq and Afghanistan is a manifest failure. As Angelo Codevilla points out (in the essay linked above and in Advice to War Presidents), the ideology of the ruling class is antithetical to victory in war.

We see this with the fruits of the “surge” in Iraq and the attempt to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda training camps have reappeared in Iraq. The destruction of Iraq’s Christian community, the ongoing sectarian violence between Muslims, and the increasingly close relationship between Iraq and Iran are other manifestations of the failure of the surge managed by Petraeus.

Winning hearts and mind in Afghanistan is, if anything, an even bigger failure. The steady stream of Afghan “allies” murdering NATO soldiers is evidence of our lack of progress towards victory. The disastrous recent attack on Camp Bastion demonstrates the lack of success of the Petraeus strategy.

Waging war successfully is not a criterion for advancement to the senior ranks of our military. This accounts for the prominence of generals like Petraeus and Powell.

I believe the events leading to Petraeus’ resignation show that I was correct in my earlier assessment of Petraeus’ character. He is a dishonorable man. He was unfaithful to his wife and unfaithful in his duties. His dishonest characterization of the Benghazi debacle and his willingness to help the Obama administration hinder the Congressional investigation of 9/11/12 are part of the same pattern of bad character as his infidelity to his marriage vows.

Petraeus had the time to send thousands of e-mails to his former mistress in the last several months, but he could not be bothered to tell the truth to Congress or fulfill his duty to do everything in his power to secure the rights of the American citizens murdered in Benghazi.

The affair was not merely a private citizen falling from grace. A man with a huge trust carried out a long-term, illicit affair in violation not only of general decency but of rules he was charged with enforcing. I wonder how many officers under Petraeus’ command in the Army were sanctioned for conduct unbecoming under his authority? How would a lower-level CIA employee have fared if he violated the rules governing security under Petraeus? Why do we think that resignation is some kind of punishment? Why is he not facing further sanctions, such as reduction in his military rank?

Petraeus’ lack of concern for duty, honor, and country is astonishing. What this shows us about the state of soul in our elite should trouble anyone concerned with the security of American rights and the perpetuation of our liberties.

Or, the general is a man who wanted to serve his country and didn’t care about politics. We won’t know whether Ruth King’s assessment is correct until more information comes to light.

There’s too much instant punditry this week for my taste. We’ve been surprised by the election results and now by the general’s revelation. It takes more than a single news report to change my opinion. We’ll hear plenty about the general’s affair in the days to come. There will be plenty of time later to form a new opinion, if that’s what the information calls for.

By the way, Ruth King seems to suggest that the general’s career lacks credibility because he didn’t participate in combat as a junior officer. He entered the army during the last full year in Vietnam (he graduated in 1974 and we left in 1975) and was promoted to LtCol just after Desert Storm started (1991). In those years the U.S. wasn’t involved in any wars.

He cares a lot about politics–read his dissertation. You don’t spend all that time hanging out in Washington if you don’t like politics!

If Petraeus was really interested in serving his country, he would not have sent thousands of emails in several months (!) to his (former?) lover. Think if he had instead spent his energies trying to figure out what was happening in Libya rather than agonizing over his crush on Broadwell like a love-sick 15 year old boy.

SoMS: Or, the general is a man who wanted to serve his country and didn’t care about politics. We won’t know whether Ruth King’s assessment is correct until more information comes to light.

There’s too much instant punditry this week for my taste. We’ve been surprised by the election results and now by the general’s revelation. It takes more than a single news report to change my opinion. We’ll hear plenty about the general’s affair in the days to come. There will be plenty of time later to form a new opinion, if that’s what the information calls for.

So you don’t like Petraeus. We get it. But here’s something you fail to realize, Mr. Grant: you have no idea what Gen. Petraeus said during that closed door hearing. That testimony is classified and that Democratic congressman whose word you seem to take as gospel cannot, under law, divulge classified testimony. What is dishonorable is that you take it as fact that Petraeus corroborated Obama’s story on Benghazi, when you have no evidence to back it up. Gen. Petraeus spent his career in public service, and as much as I detest his marital infidelity, it does not diminish my appreciation of his courage, leadership and personal sacrifice to this nation. I was reading recently that Ben Franklin fathered an illegitimate child. Does Franklin’s moral failings diminish his contributions to our nation’s founding? Finally, before you indict every senior military officer who assisted in planning our involement in OEF/OIF you owe it to them and every service member who served under them, including my husband, a more substantive, persuasive, and informed argument – on this of all days.

The strategy that Petraeus helped to devise for Iraq and Afghanistan is a manifest failure.

We see this with the fruits of the “surge” in Iraq and the attempt to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida training camps have reappeared in Iraq. The destruction of Iraq’s Christian community, … are other manifestations of the failure of the surge managed by Petraeus.

Winning hearts and mind in Afghanistan is if anything an even bigger failure. The steady stream of Afghan “allies” murdering NATO soldiers …. demonstrates the lack of success of the Petraeus strategy.

I’m sorry but this post is obscene, positively pornographic. I don’t know the credentials of the poster, but I have worked in the defense industry for multiple decades and I am nauseated by the infantile statements made here. The Surge was successful by any intelligent analysis. Let me educate the gentleman in question, a) you can not attribute failure to generals in all instances where immanent victory in war is not brought to culmination by politicians, b) that we evacuated Iraq so precipitously when any other competent leadership would have remained to succor the fragile roots of the crop they had seeded.

Oh boy. So yesterday the Surge was a great success, today the Surge is a great failure. Yesterday Petraeus was an American hero being considered for political office by the GOP, today he is a shill for Obama. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t indulge in this sort of smearing of a person simply because of his own personal, and I stress personal, issues.

PS: As for his doctoral dissertation or military merits, I’m sorry but I don’t think you, or I, are in a position to be judging them.

John, excellent post. This nation does have ruling class problem. In essence, they’ve adopted the very vices of aristocracy that we saw in Europe at the time of our Revolution. I’d also add that in trying to explain the actions of the ruling class one barometer is to examine the views of of their wives as a fail-safe indicator of the man’s own view. Cherchez la femme…Probably not pertinent to Petraeus, but I find that generally it does hold true the more one examines our ruling class in Washington DC.

What I suspect is that if the tesitmony Petraeus offered differed significantly from accounts other administration officials offered, we would have heard about that too.

Karen: (extract) “Mr. Grant: you have no idea what Gen. Petraeus said during that closed door hearing. That testimony is classified and that Democratic congressman whose word you seem to take as gospel cannot, under law, divulge classified testimony.” (end)

He may have felt compelled to offer testimony in alignment with the administration’s narrative if he found himself compromised.

Under law General Petraeus should not have been having an affair (see Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Even if Petraeus couldn’t speak openly about his testimony, he could have made a statement about what actually happened. He could have resigned in protest at the lies of the administration.

He could also have been focusing on his job instead of sending massive number of emails to his former lover. You are indignant at my characterization of Petraeus; I am indignant that four Americans died through the incompetence of Petraeus and other senior officials. Two of those men were the direct responsibility of Petraeus: they were _his men_. And he could not be bothered to attend their funerals or make sure their families heard the truth about the cause of their death.

Petraeus is typical of our top military leadership. The “cursus honorum” for officers aspiring to high rank has little to do with the martial virtues. The path to power in our armed forces has two critical components: first, make sure you always profess your faith in the ideology of the ruling class; second, spend as much time near the source of power in Washington and obtaining advanced degrees from prestigious civilian institutions as possible. The two are of course related. The degrees from prestigious universities certify one’s knowledge of and adherence to the consensus animating our elites.

“Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad.”

We see this with the fruits of the “surge” in Iraq and the attempt to win hearts and minds in Afghanistan. Al-Qaida training camps have reappeared in Iraq.

You can’t fool me. There is no such thing as “al-Qaeda.”

Qutubism is an ideology, not an organization. The cross training capabilities existed because of the Pasdaran and Hizbullah.

The ideology stands. The cross training is still going on. The golden stream still flows.

I have never maintained that the surge was a success or that Petraeus was a hero. I have many faults, but I haven’t joined a fickle mob here.

Your comment about Petraeu’s dissertation is interesting to me. Why do you think neither of us could read it and pass a competent judgment? You might read it and come to a different conclusion than me–fine. Maybe you could make an argument that would convince me.

I am not willing to say that non-experts cannot pass judgment on political and military matters. Why have elections then?

AIG: Oh boy. So yesterday the Surge was a great success, today the Surge is a great failure. Yesterday Petraeus was an American hero being considered for political office by the GOP, today he is a shill for Obama. You’ll have to excuse me if I don’t indulge in this sort of smearing of a person simply because of his own personal, and I stress personal, issues.

PS: As for his doctoral dissertation or military merits, I’m sorry but I don’t think you, or I, are in a position to be judging them. · 31 minutes ago

That’s an interesting post. I realize that David Petraeus and many others in the military power structure today have not had many ‘opportunities’ for first-hand combat, and promotion through valor on the battlefield. And I can’t help wondering if this inevitably leads to the same sort of disconnect for them that folks who think that fish begins as a frozen white lump in a plastic bag, or that hot dogs just start out that way have, when they finally come face-to-face with their food supply on the hoof or in the water. Maybe that’s why so many of them seem squeamish about ‘victory,’ or are apparently so unprepared to deal with the human cost of war.

I feel sorry for Petraeus. And his wife. I think he’s done his best. And, like the rest of us, he’s not perfect. But I think there are many inconsistencies (to use a polite word) in this story that need to be explored and explained.

Beyond that, I just don’t think we know how to fight wars any more. And I’m not sure that’s a good thing.

I have never maintained that the surge was a success or that Petraeus was a hero.

I was speaking in general, not necessarily to something you had said. Your sentiments are echoed by a lot of other people on the right. I find it unsettling that people are in such a hunger for finding scapegoats for everything that is wrong in the world. It always has to be someone’s fault?

Maybe you could make an argument that would convince me. I am not willing to say that non-experts cannot pass judgment on political and military matters.

A military issue is not a political issue. It is a technical issue. You, or I, cannot pass judgement on a dissertation in bio-chemistry, and yet we can when it comes to something equally as complex as war? E.g., saying that the aim of a war is to “win”, and not to “exit”, is a rhetorical not a substantive argument. Winning, by definition, implies getting out of a war. But neither of us have the capacity to define what winning is, how it ought to be achieved, or measured. It is context specific, and in Iraq, winning= getting out.

It doesn’t matter how brave American soldiers are, how much they sacrifice, or how much money we spend on the military when it is commanded by officers who advance to high rank by thoroughly marinating themselves in leftist dogma at the thoroughly leftist university system.

Petraeus commanded in Iraq while George Bush was president, yet imposed rules of engagement that could have been written by Warren Christopher. Many times I’ve seen anecdotes posted online about how US troops were and are not allowed to shoot back except under certain carefully selected circumstances.

Many Americans have died because of this- and the end result now is that our soldiers face real danger of being murdered by our so-called Afghan allies.

This is what failure looks like.

It will have consequences, and no doubt already has.

I say Petraeus should be court-martialed for his lawbreaking. But of course he won’t be, because accountability is for the little people.

I find it unsettling that people are in such a hunger for finding scapegoats for everything that is wrong in the world. It always has to be someone’s fault?

This is called “accountability”. If nothing else Petraeus should be held accountable for his inability to keep his pants zipped.

AIG

A military issue is not a political issue. It is a technical issue.

Huh? Can you recognize when a building is on fire, or do you need to be told by an architect?

And if you believe yourself incapable of passing judgement on military affairs then perhaps you should not comment in threads about military affairs.

Look: I make no claim to be any sort of expert about logistics or tactics or strategy- but I think I am competent enough to notice when things aren’t going well. We’ve been mucking around in Afghanistan for a decade plus- and have achieved roughly nothing.

Unless and until we are willing to directly confront Pakistan we are wasting our time and the lives of our soldiers. Petraeus should know this. Yet he says nothing about it, perhaps because he has spent so much time emailing his mistress.

I’m currently reading the Michael Hastings book on McChrystal and his entourage (he’s the infamous Rolling Stone reporter). Really interesting peek behind the scenes at the general’s staff.

For what it’s worth, the McChrystal staff didn’t have a very high opinion of Petraeus- that he’s a guy who is more about PR than tactics. The other bit that I thought was interesting is that they felt that Petraeus was the kind of (altogether too common) military commander who was fine with failure– as long as it happened to his successor.

Perhaps Mr. Grant could share with us what a ‘successful” strategy for the Iraq (and Afghan, if you chooses) War might look like. Let’s see, the long-suppressed, majority Shia population turns the other cheek and hugs their former persecutors and torturers, but now soon to be the new minor minority faction, the Sunni’s, in warm embrace and decides to let bygones-be-bygones; Iran foregoes the feast of an opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East, and extends a helping hand to its formerly hated neighbor; Al Queda renounces terrorism altogether and retreats to a remote corner of Andalusia to reflect on their naughty deeds and start a monastery that soon turns out some of the finest date wines in the region…Need I go on.

Oh, and while at it, Mr. Grant, military savant extraordinaire, perhaps you could reveal to us, puny grasshoppers we, from the impossibly lofty heights of your Olympian consciousness on the subject, how we might succeed in trying days ahead, to disarm that inimical and implacable foe seeking to gain master of nuclear arms, Iran. But, know that we are not worthy of even the smallest crumbs of your sagacity.

John Grant: GOOD POST:In 2007 the general testified the the goal of the surge was to, “avoid an unfavorable outcome”, this Obamanesque language was endorsed by the Bush administration and the slaughter continued. It is difficult to see how anyone could be the military golden boy of these two administrations and still be thought of by any thinking person as an honorable man. Anyone who has read Petraeus’ writings on counterinsurgency would conclude that the Iraq surge could not possibly be successful (result in victory) without several decades of intense military and political involvement on the part of the US. If Petraeus made this point prior to or during the surge he did not do so in public. As it is it appears he did not meet his more modest goal of avoiding an unfavorable outcome.

One might also want to note that he is the one responsible for security at the CIA annex in Benghazi which was overrun, two fatalities and several injured. It seems if the good general has a talent for anything else but romancing younger woman it is getting other people killed.

Were you also complaining when Bush was doing the same thing, or did the realization that things aren’t going well begin only when Obama took office? I have no problem with admitting that things are going worst than bad, but I do have a problem with pinning the blame on some individual whom one day is hailed as the success of the Surge, and the next day as the reason for the failure of the Surge.

Comments are cheap and free of consequences. Commanding tens of thousands, isn’t. Until you, or I or anyone else here has been there, then our comments are worst than useless. We send them there to fight, and now we’re commenting on how they’re not going a good enough job, by our standards?

Obviously we as Republicans have a problem here; we started these half-baked wars, and we’re accusing others of not being able to fix them. So we try and find blame wherever we can, instead of owning up and saying “we tried it, it seems like a good idea, it didn’t work, now lets get the heck out of that part of the world for good”.

Manfred Arcane: Perhaps Mr. Grant could share with us what a ‘successful” strategy for the Iraq (and Afghan, if you chooses) War might look like. Let’s see, the long-suppressed, majority Shia population turns the other cheek and hugs their former persecutors and torturers, but now soon to be the new minor minority faction, the Sunni’s, in warm embrace and decides to let bygones-be-bygones; Iran foregoes the feast of an opportunity to expand its influence in the Middle East, and extends a helping hand to its formerly hated neighbor;

· 21 minutes ago

Well, for starts, the idea of ever democratizing these two nations was weapons-grade luncay from the start. As if a mere vote would produce civic order. I would have opted for a punitive expedition, British Empire style, of conquering Iraq, hanging its leadership, emplacing a secular dictator, (ala the Shah) and leaving, with the stern warning of returning soon if mischief returns. Such a situation would have been far less conducive to the ethnic cleansing and slaughtering of Iraqi Christians under our watch.

If you read Petraeus’ writings on counterinsurgency it is clear that the strategy could not result in a victorious outcome in either country without intense military, political, and financial involvement for a 30+ year period of time. It is also clear the US is not and has not been prepared to do this. Cultures, especially intense religious ones are not change overnight. An honorable person would have made this clear both to the political leaders and the country before pursuing such a path. He did not.

Please note how yes men generals like Petraeus work. The Irag surge is now called a military success, the general takes his bow,and it is said the failure of the overall Iraq strategy is not a military one, but should be blamed on the politicians. Bush blames Obama, Obama blames Bush. But the counterinsurgency strategy that was recommended by Petraeus could never have worked because the US was never going to make the sustained commitment necessary to make it work and Petraeus knew this going in. Why don’t you compare this with the actions of Ike prior to “D” day.

“and Petraeus knew this going in”: You have no idea what Petraeus did or did not know. None. Zip.

“The Irag surge is now called a military success”: not just now, but when it happened, ever since then, and by every, that is Every military ‘expert’ in the Country. Are they all idiots!? I don’t think so. But you disagree with them, huh? Hmmmmmm.

Neither Petraeus, nor any other military brass decided to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. I doubt there was even a majority that were in favor of the Iraq war prior to entering.

Generals don’t decide what the Country’s military posture, aims, manpower commitments, rules of engagement, etc., etc., etc. are going to be. They explain the options to the political leaders and they decide. Comprehende?

“”It is also clear the US is not and has not been prepared to do this.”: You have got to be kidding. Nothing about these wars was clear to anyone going in. You have taken Monday morning quarterbacking to an entirely new level. You have put the trophy for such out of reach for a long time.

“Petraeus had the time to send thousands of emails to his former mistress in the last several months…”

“At some point after Petraeus was sworn in as CIA director on Sept. 6, 2011, the woman broke up with him. However, Petraeus continued to pursue her, sending her thousands of emails over the last several months, raising even more questions about his judgment.”

Thousands? I find this a bit impossible to believe. Perhaps things are different in the age of text messaging though, something I have never used.

“The affair between Gen. Petraeus and Broadwell, both of whom are married, began several months after his retirement from the army in August 2011 and ended four months ago, retired U.S. Army Col. Steve Boylan, who is a former Petraeus spokesperson, told ABC News.” Well, that’s one opinion.

Thousands of e-mails implies at least 2,000 e-mails in what maybe one or two years. That’s about an average of 5 or 10 e-mails a day. A lot of that could have about the biography though. If so, someone was gong to find out eventually. He couldn’t use the biography as an excuse forever.

AIG: So we try and find blame wherever we can, instead of owning up and saying “we tried it, it seems like a good idea, it didn’t work, now lets get the heck out of that part of the world for good”. · 20 minutes ago

The choice is not between the boneheaded strategy Bush chose and no involvement. Before Bush it was known that Iran has been sponsoring terrorism throughout the world and yet the US has never held the government responsible. Radical schools and masques exist in various countries they teach young men the west needs to be destroyed. These young men serve as recruits for terrorists. Tell the governments of these countries to shut them down or face consequences.

Since Iran is using violence I would suggest the consequences should be violent ones. A few missiles every month or so can prove to be vary persuasive and far less costly than an Iraq war. We might want to be more creative with the countries that host the radical schools.

Doing nothing but talking, as the last two presidents and their generals have done seems stupid to me.

I did not maintain or imply that I possess some superior insight not vouchsafed to other mortals. I made an argument; I did not demand assent.

If the best argument for the strategy employed by Petraeus et al. is “I dare you to try and do better” we are in trouble.

Manfred Arcane: Perhaps Mr. Grant could share with us what a ‘successful” strategy for the Iraq (and Afghan, if you chooses) War might look like. Oh, and while at it, Mr. Grant, military savant extraordinaire, perhaps you could reveal to us, puny grasshoppers we, from the impossibly lofty heights of your Olympian consciousness on the subject, how we might succeed in trying days ahead, to disarm that inimical and implacable foe seeking to gain master of nuclear arms, Iran. But, know that we are not worthy of even the smallest crumbs of your sagacity. · 1 hour ago